DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 3/15/2024 has been acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Application
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are pending.
Claim 10 has been cancelled.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 14, and 17 have been amended.
Claims 1, 9 and 14 are independent.
Claims 7-8 have been withdrawn from consideration as not being part of the elected Species II, however once allowable subject matter is captured in the independent claim, the withdrawn species may be rejoined
This Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 1/6/2026.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 1/6/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Office Note: Claim 10 has been cancelled, therefore any rejection or objection pertaining thereupon is now considered moot.
With respect to the claim rejections of Claims 1-6 and 9-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant remarks “Hansen does not describe or suggest determining whether to launch the drone based on a determination that the vehicle is approaching a predefined operating environment” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
It remains the Office’s stance that Hansen still renders the claims as presented amended, obvious. First, the term “predefined operating environment” is extremely broad. Could mean an intersection, a traffic jam, even the car being turned on (operating environment), or finally a route to a destination. The Office is interpreting the route to a destination as the “predefined operating environment”, as the vehicle sets a destination in which the vehicle must travel, a route. This route is predefined and the environment in which the vehicle will soon be operating. “A navigation system calculates a route for the vehicle to follow along roads in order to arrive at a destination” [Hansen, Abstract”. Therefore the Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant remarks “Hansen does not describe or suggest determining whether one or more operating conditions of the vehicle exceed threshold values and basing the determination on whether to launch the drone based in part on the determination the determination of whether the one or more operation conditions of the vehicle exceed the threshold values” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
It remains the Office’s stance that Hansen still renders the claims as presented amended, obvious. Again, the term “operating conditions” is extremely broad. Applicant further remarks “Operating conditions of the vehicle may include a vehicle speed, acceleration, gear, braking, direction, and other vehicle conditions” but as this is only an exemplary list, and not all inclusive, and further not even the claims, “operating conditions” remains broad. Hansen discloses “Drone 14 may perform such reconnaissance routinely and/or autonomously, or may do so due to some specific circumstances that raise the probability that vehicle 12 may want to change its planned route. Such circumstances may include, for example, a reduction in the speed of vehicle 12; a change in weather conditions; an increase in the number of surrounding vehicles and/or a reduction in the spacing of surrounding vehicles (e.g., a traffic jam); other vehicles on the planned route being motionless (e.g., such as after a collision), having reduced speed, or being off of the road; or there being smoke detected by drone 14 along the planned route” [Hansen, ¶ 0024]. Here, the vehicle is launched based on “specific circumstances” and further based on operating conditions such as change of speed, change of spacing, weather, motion of other vehicles, and even location of other vehicles. Therefore the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
Applicant further remarks that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Hansen (United States Patent Publication 2024/0119834).
With respect to Claim 1: Hansen discloses “A vehicle comprising: an integrated advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS) vehicle controller comprising a memory configured to store program instructions, and a processor configured to execute the program instructions” [Hansen, ¶ 0006, 0023-0024 and 0026];
“a plurality of sensors comprising at least a first sensor configured to transmit data to said vehicle controller” [Hansen, ¶ 0006, 0023-0024 and 0026];
“and a drone removably coupled to said vehicle” [Hansen, ¶ 0006, 0023-0024 and 0026];
“said drone comprising at least a second sensor configured to transmit data to said processor” [Hansen, ¶ 0006, 0023-0024 and 0026];
“said vehicle controller programmed to: determine whether the vehicle is approaching a pre-defined operating environment” [Hansen, ¶ 0006, 0023-0024 and 0026];
“determine whether one or more operating conditions of the vehicle exceed threshold values” [Hansen, ¶ 0006, 0023-0024 and 0026];
“determine whether to launch said drone from said vehicle based on
the determination of whether the vehicle is approaching the pre-defined operating environment and the determination of whether the one or more operating conditions of the vehicle exceed the threshold values” [Hansen, ¶ 0006, 0023-0024 and 0026];
“and selectively change operation of the vehicle based on data received from said drone” [Hansen, ¶ 0006, 0023-0024 and 0026].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (United States Patent Publication 2024/0119834) in view of Smith et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0331403).
With respect to Claim 2: While Hansen discloses “The vehicle of Claim 1, wherein said vehicle controller is further programmed to: collect LIDAR data from said at least one drone second sensor when the drone is airborne” [Hansen, ¶ 0006, 0023-0024 and 0026];
“apply the LIDAR data to a mapping model to generate a real-time map” [Hansen, ¶ 0006, 0023-0024 and 0026];
“and selectively change operation of the vehicle at least partially based on the LIDAR data” [Hansen, ¶ 0006, 0023-0024 and 0026];
Hansen does not specifically state that the drone works while on the vehicle.
Smith, which is also a system that launches a drone from the vehicles, based on commands teaches “wherein said vehicle controller is further programmed to: collect image data from said drone second sensor while the drone is physically coupled to said vehicle” [Smith, ¶ 0018, 0074-0075, 0212-0245 with Figure 7];
“collect LIDAR/image data from said at least one drone second sensor when the drone is airborne” [Smith, ¶ 0018, 0074-0075, 0212-0245 with Figure 7];
“apply the LIDAR/image data to a mapping model to generate a real-time map” [Smith, ¶ 0018, 0074-0075, 0212-0245 with Figure 7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Smith into the invention of Hansen to not only include launching UAV’s to monitor out locations/situations around a vehicle as Hansen discloses but to also lean in and use the drones sensor data for further vehicle/control while attached as taught by Smith with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Smith into Hansen to create a more robust system that use sensors of other vehicles for enhanced control, like object tracking. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as launching and using Drone data when working with a vehicle and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 4: Hansen discloses “The vehicle of Claim 2, wherein said drone further comprises at least one of a radar, a proximity sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, an electromagnetic sensor, a wide RADAR, a long-distance RADAR, a Global Positioning System (GPS), a video device, an imaging device, a camera, an audio recorder, and a computer vision” [Hansen, ¶ 0006].
With respect to Claim 5: Hansen discloses “The vehicle of Claim 2, wherein said drone includes at least one battery configured to power operation of said drone, said vehicle controller is further programmed to determine to charge the at least one battery on said drone while said drone is physically coupled to the vehicle and the vehicle is operating” [Hansen, ¶ 0006 and 0021].
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (United States Patent Publication 2024/0119834) in view of Smith et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0331403), and in view of Xu et al. (United States Patent Publication 2023/0252896).
With respect to Claim 3: While Hansen discloses “The vehicle of Claim 1, wherein said vehicle controller is further programmed to: collect LIDAR data from said drone second sensor when the drone is airborne” [Hanses, ¶ 0006, 0023-0024 and 0026];
Hansen does not specifically state that the vehicle has sensors.
Xu which is also a system that launches a drone from the vehicles, based on commands teaches “wherein the first sensor includes at least one of a radar, a video device, an imaging device, and a camera” [Xu, ¶ 0005 and 0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Xu into the invention of Hansen to not only include launching UAV’s to monitor out locations/situations around a vehicle as Hansen discloses but to also have cameras on the vehicle as taught by Xu with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Xu into Hansen to create a more robust system that can combine sensors for a safer environment (world model) [Xu, Abstract]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as launching and using Drone data when working with a vehicle and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 6: While Hansen discloses “The vehicle of Claim 2, wherein the vehicle controller is further programmed to launch said drone from said vehicle” [Hanses, ¶ 0006, 0023-0024 and 0026];
Hansen does not specifically state that the approach trigger is an intersection.
Xu which is also a system that launches a drone from the vehicles, based on commands teaches “The vehicle of Claim 2, wherein the vehicle controller is further programmed to launch said drone from said vehicle when said vehicle approaches a pre-defined intersection classification” [Xu, ¶ 0035-0036 with Figure 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Xu into the invention of Hansen to not only include launching UAV’s to monitor out locations/situations around a vehicle as Hansen discloses but to also have cameras on the vehicle as taught by Xu with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Xu into Hansen to create a more robust system that can combine sensors for a safer environment (world model) [Xu, Abstract]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as launching and using Drone data when working with a vehicle and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (United States Patent Publication 2024/0119834) in view of Smith et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0331403) and in further view of Saha et al. (United States Patent Publication 2025/0004468).
With respect to Claim 9: While Hansen discloses “A control system for controlling a vehicle” [Hansen, ¶ 0006, 0023-0024 and 0026];
“wherein the control system comprises: a computer device integrated with a vehicle advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS) for the vehicle” [Hansen, ¶ 0006, 0013, 0023-0024 and 0026];
“wherein the computer device comprises: at least one memory; and at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory, the at least one processor programmed to” [Hansen, ¶ 0006, 0013, 0023-0024 and 0026];
“determine whether the vehicle is approaching a pre-defined operating environment” [Hansen, ¶ 0006, 0023-0024 and 0026];
“determine whether one or more operating conditions of the vehicle exceed threshold values” [Hansen, ¶ 0006, 0023-0024 and 0026];
“determine whether to launch said drone from said vehicle based on
the determination of whether the vehicle is approaching the pre-defined operating environment and the determination of whether the one or more operating conditions of the vehicle exceed the threshold values” [Hansen, ¶ 0006, 0023-0024 and 0026];
“collect LIDAR data from at least one drone” [Hansen, ¶ 0006, 0013, 0023-0024 and 0026];
“collect LIDAR data from the at least one drone while the drone is airborne” [Hansen, ¶ 0006, 0013, 0023-0024 and 0026];
“and determine at least one course of action for the vehicle to execute, based on the LIDAR data received” [Hansen, ¶ 0006, 0013, 0023-0024 and 0026];
Hansen does not specifically state that the drone works while on the vehicle or that it is tethered.
Smith, which is also a system that launches a drone from the vehicles, based on commands teaches “collect image data from at least one drone coupled against the vehicle during operation of the vehicle;” [Smith, ¶ 0018, 0074-0075, 0212-0245 with Figure 7];
“collect LIDAR/image data from said drone second sensor when the drone is airborne” [Smith, ¶ 0018, 0074-0075, 0212-0245 with Figure 7];
“apply the LIDAR/image data to a mapping model to generate a real-time map” [Smith, ¶ 0018, 0074-0075, 0212-0245 with Figure 7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Smith into the invention of Hansen to not only include launching UAV’s to monitor out locations/situations around a vehicle as Hansen discloses but to also lean in and use the drones sensor data for further vehicle/control while attached as taught by Smith with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Smith into Hansen to create a more robust system that use sensors of other vehicles for enhanced control, like object tracking. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as launching and using Drone data when working with a vehicle and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Saha, which is also a drone launching system for a vehicles teaches “collect LIDAR data from the at least one drone while the drone is airborne and tethered to the vehicle” [Saha, ¶ 0002, 0022-0023, and 0025-0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Saha into the invention of Hansen to not only include launching UAV’s to monitor out locations/situations around a vehicle as Hansen discloses but to also use a tethered approach for drone control as taught by Saha with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Saha into Hansen to create a more robust system that avoids drones getting lost and allows for longer flights due to power control [Saha, ¶ 0027]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as launching and using Drone data when working with a vehicle and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 12: Hansen discloses “The control system of Claim 9, wherein the drone is battery-operated, said at least one processor further programmed to charge the batteries on the drone while the vehicle is operating and while the drone is coupled against the vehicle” [Hansen, ¶ 0006 and 0021].
Claims 11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (United States Patent Publication 2024/0119834) in view of Smith et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0331403), in further view of Saha et al. (United States Patent Publication 2025/0004468), and in view of Xu et al. (United States Patent Publication 2023/0252896).
With respect to Claim 11: While Hansen discloses “The control system of Claim 9, wherein the at least one processor further programmed to: collect operating data” [Hanses, ¶ 0006, 0023-0024 and 0026];
Hansen does not specifically state that the vehicle is collecting data or that a world map is created.
Xu which is also a system that launches a drone from the vehicles, based on commands teaches “wherein the at least one processor further programmed to: collect operating data from at least one sensor coupled to the vehicle” [Xu, ¶ 0005 and 0029];
“and apply the LIDAR data and the data collected from the at least one sensor coupled to the vehicle” [Xu, ¶ 0035-0036 with Figure 2],
“to a mapping model to generate a real-time map” [Xu, ¶ 0035-0036 with Figure 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Xu into the invention of Hansen to not only include launching UAV’s to monitor out locations/situations around a vehicle as Hansen discloses but to also have cameras on the vehicle as taught by Xu with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Xu into Hansen to create a more robust system that can combine sensors for a safer environment (world model) [Xu, Abstract]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as launching and using Drone data when working with a vehicle and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 13: While Hansen discloses “The vehicle of Claim 9, wherein the vehicle controller is further programmed to launch said drone from said vehicle” [Hanses, ¶ 0006, 0023-0024 and 0026];
Hansen does not specifically state that the approach trigger is an intersection.
Xu which is also a system that launches a drone from the vehicles, based on commands teaches “wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to determine if the vehicle is at least one of approaching a hard nose of an on ramp, approaching a pre-defined intersection classification, entering a parking lot, is preparing to pass another vehicle traveling in the same direction, and is traveling past a plurality of vehicles stopped adjacent to a sidewalk” [Xu, ¶ 0035-0036 with Figure 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Xu into the invention of Hansen to not only include launching UAV’s to monitor out locations/situations around a vehicle as Hansen discloses but to also have cameras on the vehicle as taught by Xu with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Xu into Hansen to create a more robust system that can combine sensors for a safer environment (world model) [Xu, Abstract]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as launching and using Drone data when working with a vehicle and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claims 14, 16 and 18: all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in Claims 9 and 11-13. The method taught/disclosed in Claims 14, 16 and 18 can clearly perform on the system of Claims 9 and 11-13. Therefore Claims 14, 16 and 18 are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 15: Hansen discloses “The method of Claim 14 further comprising determining at least one course of action for the vehicle based on the second sensor data collected” [Hanses, ¶ 0006, 0023-0024 and 0026].
With respect to Claim 17: While Hansen discloses “The method of Claim 14, wherein determining an, operating condition the operating environment is a planned route of the vehicle” [Hanses, ¶ 0006, 0023-0024 and 0026];
Hansen does not specifically state other possible predetermined areas to launch the drone..
Xu which is also a system that launches a drone from the vehicles, based on commands teaches “wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to determine if the vehicle is at least one of approaching a hard nose of an on ramp, approaching a pre-defined intersection classification, entering a parking lot, is preparing to pass another vehicle traveling in the same direction, and is traveling past a plurality of vehicles stopped adjacent to a sidewalk” [Xu, ¶ 0035-0036 with Figure 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Xu into the invention of Hansen to not only include launching UAV’s to monitor out locations/situations around a vehicle as Hansen discloses but to also have cameras on the vehicle as taught by Xu with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Xu into Hansen to create a more robust system that can combine sensors for a safer environment (world model) [Xu, Abstract]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as launching and using Drone data when working with a vehicle and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 19: Hansen discloses “The method of Claim 17 further comprising receiving an input from a user to launch the drone from the vehicle” [Hanses, ¶ 0006, 0022-0024 and 0026].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (United States Patent Publication 2024/0119834) in view of Smith et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0331403), in further view of Saha et al. (United States Patent Publication 2025/0004468), in view of Xu et al. (United States Patent Publication 2023/0252896), and in further view of Ahmed et al. (United States Patent Publication 2021/0070471).
With respect to Claim 20: While Hansen discloses “The vehicle of Claim 2, wherein the vehicle controller is further programmed to launch said drone from said vehicle” [Hanses, ¶ 0006, 0023-0024 and 0026];
Hansen does not specifically state what happens when emergency vehicles are detected.
Ahmend which is also a system that launches a drone from the vehicles, based on commands teaches “The method of Claim 17 further comprising: determining whether an emergency response vehicle is approaching; and determining at least one course of action based on a determination that an emergency response vehicle is approaching” [Ahmed, ¶ 0038-0040 with Figure 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ahmed into the invention of Hansen to not only include launching UAV’s to monitor out locations/situations around a vehicle as Hansen discloses but to also detect emergency vehicles and control the host vehicle accordingly as taught by Ahmed with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Ahmed into Hansen to create a more robust system that more quickly respond to emergencies (before driver hears or sees them) [Ahmed, ¶ 0040]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as launching and using Drone data when working with a vehicle and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am -4pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c